Valve: Accept New Steam Subscriber Agreement Or Disable Your Account

Earlier this month Valve updated the Steam subscriber agreement to include language that prevents customers with disputes from filing lawsuits against the company, and instead forces them to agree to the decisions of a Valve-paid-for “independent” arbitrator. As bad as that is, we are now getting reports that users are being told that they have to either submit to the new terms or have their accounts permanently deactivated, and in the process lose access to all the content they purchased through Steam.
(Industry, PC, Steam Valve)

Doesn't matter. I don't think Valve is going to start stepping on the toes of their community. They have a good reputation and this could be seen as a pre-emptive against trolls wanting to sue for a BS reason.

Besides, free will is still here... if they EFF you over, sell your Steam account and be done with it. Although, they have not done any wrong to me and are usually willing to work with us... this does not affect me either.

I don't have much of a problem with the ToS. If Valve ever starts to do something that affects me and I don't like it, I won't buy anymore games from them....simple as that. I doubt I would go out of my way to sue them anyway.

Actually it's not at all like this with any piece of commercial software. Most software is a piece of merchandise itself, with an agreement attached that is made upon purchase. Steam is a free service where people have *already paid lots of money* to "own" products that may no longer be accessed unless you agree to new terms that were not present when you originally made the deal. It's similar to what Sony did, except instead of being prohibited to use the PSN in the future as on the PS3, anyone here who doesn't agree with the terms loses everything they already paid for. I honestly see this as ground for a suit. But anyway, yeah, they're nothing alike. I think the crux of your statement though, whether you realize it or not, is right here:

"Not that I agree with what Valve is doing though; but it doesn't affect me in any way."

Let me ask, will it then be worth discussing if it happens to step on your own personal toes one day?

*edit* Also your comment is "not a reply". Sorry, but it isn't. People just commenting to the top comment for visibility is one of the things that makes the comments here such a mess to navigate. 80% of the replies on an article to one comment...

Another reason why I am very leery of digital distribution. They bought those games under the OLD TOS. Now, if they don't want to accept the new one (for whatever reasons) they get screwed out of games that they paid for. Doesn;t seem right to me.

Steam is a form of DRM, so if you bought a game from steam (or one that uses steamworks), you'd have to comply with their new TOS. Doesn't matter if that game was originally bought as a physical disc or not.

If you bought your games from other digital distributors that don't use DRM (such as GOG), then you'll never run into this kind of problem.

You can similarly be locked out of online portions of your games on consoles if you don't comply with PSN/XBL TOS, or the game publisher's own TOS. (Although that isn't as bad as locking you out of the game completely like steam) So the issue here isn't really about digital distribution.

^ As I said, the issue isn't digital distribution itself, it's the DRM that is on it.

There are digital retailers like GOG and GamersGate that don't use DRM, and as such, you'll always be able to play your game.

Furthermore, in the case of PC gaming, it wouldn't matter if you had a physical disc or not. EA, Blizzard or Valve don't need to snatch a physical disc from my hand, they'll just disable the account that the physical game was activated on (and that renders the entire thing unplayable).

Just because "that is how it is" doesnt make it right. If you paid for it, there should be no if's and's or but's about it. They should not have the right to just take it away from you like that - DRM or not.

Even if there were rules like this back in the PS1 and N64 days, at least the companies couldnt wirelessly lock you out of your shit if they decided to change policy and you didnt agree to it.

If you want to argue about if it's right or not, then steam's agreement has always said that they reserve the right to change the terms and conditions at any time. Whenever you buy a game, you are reminded of those terms, and you have to agree to them.

So since day-1, you have agreed that Valve can change the terms at any time, and you'd be fine with it. So why the surprise?

@Persistant

My point is, that in digital distribution, you don't necessarily have to do what they say.

"There are digital retailers like GOG and GamersGate that don't use DRM, and as such, you'll always be able to play your game."

Until developers start making their games exclusive to a single distribution platform like Origin or Steam. Larger devs might look at EAs origin and make their own unwanted but necessary distribution service. Then most, if not all (probably not all, but most) games you would be forced to use their drm if you want to play the game.

"Furthermore, in the case of PC gaming, it wouldn't matter if you had a physical disc or not. EA, Blizzard or Valve don't need to snatch a physical disc from my hand, they'll just disable the account that the physical game was activated on (and that renders the entire thing unplayable)."

With digital distribution, devs can take away both sp and mp, with physical media, devs can only take away online, at least when it comes to consoles. With PC they can just implement drm onto the disc, so there's that problem, but I'm talking about a digital distribution future as a whole, not just for pc games. Digital distribution as a whole poses many problems.

So the issue still is with digital distribution, because if gaming goes DD only, then digital distribution and DRM will become one in the same, at least for most titles. You can get into technicalities like "it's drm/devs that's the problem, not dd", but the fact is, most big devs will force DRM into their games if digital distribution ever becomes the norm.

^ Well, on PC, the dark future is already here. Blizzard, EA and Valve have their own respective platforms, while some publishers (Rockstar and Ubisoft) have their own DRMs.

Buying a game digitally or physically doesn't matter on PC because you end up in the same place.

Now, the reason I like to keep a distinction between DD and DRM is that one leads to the other, but you have it backwards. Devs didn't force DRM after DD, rather, they forced it before everything went digital.

If digital was to take over on consoles, then I think that DRM would have to arrive first, and that's where you'll lose your rights. Of course, I could be wrong and things might just directly go digital, but based on history, I have a feeling DRM-like practices would be first.

We're already seeing something similar on consoles now where it's becoming increasingly rare to just insert a disc and play without entering some code, whether for some locked single-player content or multiplayer.

Piracy was used as an excuse on PC. Used-games market is now used as an excuse for increasingly draconian measures on console games.

Other than that, it isn't impossible for Valve to allow people to keep playing their games under old TOS. Valve could allow users to sell their games too. They can give users the same freedoms as the Atari days. It's not an inherent element of DD to impose those restrictions.

By itself, digital distribution doesn't necessarily mean DRM, obviously, but if the DD-only future comes, it's not coming alone, it will definitely be coming with DRM. It's kind of pointless to talk about both of them as if they were separate entities, because they wont be.

It will be up to the developers to decide whether or not you will get screwed over.

Digital Distribution in a perfect world would be fine, but we don't live in a perfect world, we live in a world full of greedy assholes who will do everything in their power to milk every last cent from the consumer that they possibly can, which is why you have to assume that DRM will come with the DD future. DD-only will bring about these service locked games, but at least with the physical media that we've already purchased on consoles and some pc games, we can still play those at any time we want(the single player aspect), and devs cant do anything about that, but if things were to switch over to digital distribution, I could lose the ability to play any of the game that I've purchased on my digital titles.

Digital only future is bad for gaming, at least in the world we live in.

I myself am actually fearing that one day, all those games I bought on PSN (like 300 dollars worth of stuff) will someday be taken down because they're old and Sony wont want to spend the money on the servers to keep the content up for download.

Exactly. I think it's odd how people agree to a contract in good faith and then suddenly one party changes the contract without your permission and you get screwed and yet so many people think that is ok. Valve just lost me as a customer and probably a lot of other people as well.

I bet it has to do with the recent ruling in European courts that you can resell digital Licenses. Anyone here good with law? Could valve block any attempts of a court here to follow the EU(or whichever country it was) by keeping individuals from suing and claiming the new EU law as precedence?

It's called online control. Most abuse it. Some won't. These companies seem to be trying to offer a service and nothing else. If one could keep games then their services would no longer be needed. This is why they keep positioning themselves with these constantly updated legal agreements. It allows them more leverage to keep their service industry going....and they achieve this leverage by threatening the consumer to agree or take away their game access. If one were to think this through they would realize that there are two options: Agree to lose them slow or agree to lose them now.

Actually, the prevention of class-action lawsuits only really holds in the US. Most places including the EU have laws that prevent companies from restricting consumer rights.

If Valve was trying to avoid something, it would be the ruling that says that software licenses can be resold by users. New agreement refers to the games as a limited subscription, so they're not obliged to allow users to re-sell their steam games.

lol the moment you get comfortable with the way the big 3 handle things is the moment they can bend ou over and leave you a nasty surprise. Don't ever trust big business. Their only purpose is to make money not please you.

i have lost A LOT of respect for valve with this ToS and basically holding my games and profile hostage unless i sign away my rights. I've never had a problem with valve, in fact I've supported them in whatever they've done. But i have to say this is the most F@&CKED up any company could do. i expect this kind of s*&t from MS with GFWL or EA with ORIGIN,even $ony's P$N and M$ with live. but valve i held with great respect. now in my book they are growing to be one of the worst.

I've wouldn't have join a class action suit against valve since they've always help me with a problem in the past. but forcing me to sign(and i do mean Forcing me) this new ToS or lose my 165 games I've bought with no refund and no way of accessing them if i don't agree. is at a all time low for me.

Know imagine that 5 from 10 years from know steam goes down for good ....all those sweet licence games we all brought on steam go away!!That the reason we shoud not accept digital only,and support another média suport dvd,bluray....Iwant to be able to acess my games anytime and anywere from now till i die!

Well, I just lost 500 games, but its time to say goodbye to Steam... Been wanting to for a while, its a dagger in my back, but a step away from communism we need to take... Later Steam, your one step closer to digging your own grave.

While the idea Valve can cut you off from your games is disconcerting, people need to be clear about what you are agreeing to.

You CAN still sue Valve. You CANNOT join a class suit. If you were going to sue valve for compensation, a class suit is NOT they way to go since you won't likely get anything out of it anyway.

I think Valve needs to make it so you have total access to your games minus the service they provide should you not agree.

At the end of the day Valve sells games. Entertainment. You aren't risking your life savings, your children's futures or your freedom. Just games. If Valve up and shuts down out of the blue, my guess is there will be bigger problems to worry about.

Get the word out, this is a good wake up call that needs supporting.. time for new software laws and end this bullshit greed from publishers that are only trying to cease a 2nd hand market, Markets rule the world, fuck you and your greed! Next thing ya know, I'll need to scan my friends credit card if he wants to come over and sit in my gaming chair.

"Could" it happen, sure. But what about the negative side of such an action? You really think its as simple as Gabe waking up one morning and deciding to charge a fee for the service? Consider:

1. Why do that? Valve isn't in any financial trouble, in fact quite the opposite.

2. How would the publishers that use Steam feel about it? What effect will it have on their EULAs?

3. Will the inevitable surge in piracy be worth it?

4. Will 10$ a year be worth losing a large amount of customers? Will it be worth sacrificing all the trust they built over the years?

Its really easy to look at a company like Valve and assume they're just a heartless corporation who only cares about the bottomline. Its just as easy to forget what they've been doing for the past 7 or 8 years.

Point is, yes there are kinks in the DD system and I hope they are fixed, but I'll give Valve the benefit of the doubt. After all, 7 years of great service is worth that much at least. Not everyone has the same experiences, but based on Steam's popularity many would agree.

Goddamn people are stupid. All class action lawsuits are good for is paying lawyers. They are bad for consumers, they are bad for companies. Arbitration is almost always better for the consumer to begin with. Bind arbitration clauses also, gasp, happen to be the law of the land.

I'm not sure how this changes anything. Steam customer support is bottom-tier AWFUL. I've had issues with the Steam application that took -years- to solve via Valve "support tickets."

Hell, on no less than three occassions I've had steam delete games from my account, and then REFUSE to add them back despite the fact that they showed up on my account statement, that I had reciept emails, etc., etc. The most recent one was Napoleon: Total War. After about a month of pointless back-and-forth with Steam support, I finally just contacted SEGA. They sent me a new CD key for the game inside of two hours.

And this would be why I won't accept digital downloads, and will leave gaming when it becomes the norm. It has nothing to do with them wanting to keep people from doing class action lawsuits, but it has absolutely everything to do with them thinking it's okay to take away something I payed for.

People need to wise up, your ridiculously giving services like Steam and Onlive the ability to control your purchases.